Coat of Arms of the "Republic of Kosovo"[edit]

The image in the template is the Coat of Arms of the unrecognized "Republic of Kosovo", an entity supported only by the Kosovar Albanians. The Republic of Serbia, i.e. the "Serbian side" of the dispute does not recognize the "Republic of Kosovo", and neither do the Kosovar Serbs. To my knowledge, Wikipedia supports a neutral point of view in this dispute, and does not favor either side. The CoA is a symbol of the Albanian entity, hence it is Albanian POV. It is not a "symbol of Kosovo" as the Serbian enclaves are within Kosovo as well, acknowledging only the government in Belgrade and the UN, which also does not recognize the "Republic of Kosovo" (or its symbols). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:History_of_Abkhazia or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:History_of_Vojvodina Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a citizen of one of the countries interested in learning about the regional developments, would also expect to see symbols of the newborn state. Let's say that Putin decides to pay a visit to encyclopedias to learn something new. Wouldn't he be interested in seeing how the Kosovar coat of the arms looks like? Let alone Hu of China...--A B X T • ៛ 07:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ah, here we go... Kosovo is an independent case, not to be guided by precedents, only by policy (like WP:NPOV, for example). But I'll humor you just to illustrate my point:

As for your other point: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a citizen of one of the countries interested in learning about the regional developments, would also expect to see symbols of the newborn state." That's a nice bit of baseless speculation, but I'm afraid its not really an argument (this is an encyclopedia!? no kidding?). The CoA is in violation of WP:NPOV in that it is a symbol of only one side of the dispute. Concerning the last link in the template, it is completely pro-Albanian. The "Republic of Kosovo" is a disputed unrecognized political entity which, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, exists 'alongside' the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". How is calling the Kosovo article "Republic of Kosovo" neutral? Not only it it not neutral, but its incorrect and misleading.
Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't revert edits until discussion is over, as is standard practice in controversial topics. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kosovo is a partially recognized country asuch to deny that some people decree it to be a country is itself a POV. The COA of Kosovo is the symbol of the region as well as the politicial entity. The Quill (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Word games. The template quite clearly does not state Kosovo is a country, or a region, or an autonomous province or... anything, for that matter. I'm just trying to make the template as neutral as is required by the extremely controversial nature of the dispute. The Serbian minority does not recognize the insignia of the Republic of Kosovo as representative of anything, and neither does Serbia, or the UN for that matter. This CoA has never been used to represent the region itself, only the Republic of Kosovo. To use it in that capacity on Wikipedia would be completely incorrect.
Look guys, I don't see your argument here. Both sides of the Kosovo dispute should be represented equally, even the Kosovo article has two infoboxes ffs. I'm sorry, but I don't comprehend how using the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Kosovo, and calling today's Kosovo the "Republic of Kosovo" is anywhere near neutrality. The template in its former state was exactly the way it would be if there was no highly volitile dispute raging everywhere, and Kosovo was a fully and indisputably independent state(!) Kosovo simply isn't there (yet), Wikipedia recognizes this. So should this template. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Wikipedia recognizes this." excuse me but where is your evidence for this? You are merely reverting and alterting this template to a version that is POV while twisting the actions of others to make it seem as though we are doing that. The Quill (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia recognizes this. Have a look at the Kosovo article and the Kosovo ARBCOM. Both sides are to be represented painfully equally. Zero favoritism either way.
"You are merely reverting and alterting this template to a version that is POV while twisting the actions of others to make it seem as though we are doing that." That's your opinion. While its generally nice to share opinions I hope your next post will address one of the arguments I've presented. And PLEASE stop edit-warring. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll counter an argument when you give me one. And when I asked for links I was hoping for them. The Quill (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Argument 1:

Argument 2:

(It follows that a symbol of an incorrect term is equally as incorrect in depicting the topic.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Allow me to answer your sentences one at a time.

Incorrect. If we follow the logic above the region of Kosovo is not "100%" in the hands of either the Serbs or the Albanians. The enclaves are the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", the rest is the Republic of Kosovo.
You're not making sense. I suspect your English is bad or you're writing in haste. It is unquestionably a violation of Wikipedia policy to call the whole of Kosovo "Republic of Kosovo", as those who claim independence call it that way, and they are only one side of the dispute. Hence, only their point of view (POV) is represented -> therefore WP:NPOV is not adhered to. This is simple logic.
Exactly. This is why we are forbidden by policy to represent only the point of view of those who come from Albania or Serbia. A blank image and a neutral heading such as "modern Kosovo" point neither way. To claim a blank image is "POV" is absurd in itself. To claim an image representing only one side of the dispute is somehow neutral is also quite nonsensical. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed template image

Part of a series on the
History of Kosovo
Kosovo
Early History
Prehistoric Balkans
Roman Empire
Byzantine Empire
Middle Ages
Bulgarian Empire
Medieval Serbia
Battle of Kosovo
Ottoman Kosovo
Eyalet of Rumelia
Vilayet of Kosovo
Albanian nationalism
20th century
First Balkan War
Kingdom of Serbia
Kingdom of Yugoslavia
AP Kosovo and Metohija
SAP Kosovo
AP Kosovo and Metohija
Recent history
Kosovo War
UN administration
Contemporary Kosovo

Here's a way to avoid getting entangled in the ethnic dispute: we simply don't use the symbols of any side of the dispute. (Of course, there is no way that the Kosovo article will be linked by way of the "Republic of Kosovo" redirect. That's pure unhidden POV and pro-Albanian favoritism, I'll go all the way to ARBCOM on this.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can agree on the image change but I dont no about the other changes. The Quill (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well we obviously can't have a link to the modern period under the "20th century" heading, so I assume you're referring to "Contemporary Kosovo". Do you have any suggestions then? I'm ok with anything that does not favor one side or the other. "Modern Kosovo"? "Recent history of Kosovo"? I basically want to remove the 'History of Serbia' templates from Kosovo history articles and replace them with this template. I can't do that unless we have an NPOV template. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm with DIREKTOR on this one. Guys realise that Kosovo is seen as a Serbian province according to majority of the world. Lets keep this NPOV by recognising this point of view which seems to be ignored all the time.Mike Babic (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mike. As you can see, I don't support the secession of illegally created self-proclaimed states ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with the image change - Wikipedia is not here to satisfy the partial recognizers or the Slavic anti-secessionists. I will call in for an arbitration help.--A B X T • ៛ 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed it is not. It is here to depict information in the most detached way possible. That's why we have policies, like WP:NPOV (which I'm getting tired of quoting). That was an internal joke between Mike and I. I don't see how my above post or my mixed Slavic/Italian ethnicity reflect on the arguments I've stated above. If anything, it may show I am a person of legal principle. In either case, I believe both are quite irrelevant to the matter at hand. Please address the reasons I've listed above. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You misunderstood me, as it is expected in cases when human beings are in a high emotional rather than rational state. I did not imply any racist expression when mentioning the Slavic adjective. As a matter of fact, I want all people to live in peace with each other, rather than hate each other, despite the Serbian nationalism (in an occupied territory. So, buddy, chill out, enjoy life (go get some beer) and don't worry about politics - your blood pressure might increase, in which case I would advise some Turkish coffee... --A B X T • ៛ 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I normally adore Turkish cuisine, but coffee is bad for high blood pressure (it doesn't increase it in the long run, but it can cause heart problems when coupled with some high blood pressure). How should I interpret that statement? :) Well you mentioned my ethnicity in a context which suggests it may be used as a label. I did not take offense, however, nor did I suggest you did not want all "peace on earth and good to all man kind". I assure you, I did not enter into an "emotional state". I merely pointed out that labels and ethnicities have no baring on the issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol to 'How should I interpret that statement?'. In fact, when I express my desire for peace, I am not doing that for political correctness, but because I have come to learn the anti-values of war. Take a look at this page - we have used 1000+ words just for the Kosovar coat of the arms - isn't that ironical? Even more so is the proposal of a 'neutral' image. In my life, Wikipedia is the only place I see images being labeled as neutral...--A B X T • ៛ 01:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was kidding, hence the smiley (":)"). As for the "neutrality of images", well, I don't see how you find it strange. Images convey thoughts, just like words and letters, these thoughts conveyed by the image can be very much "biased" or "neutral" (what would you say of the swastika, for example? its banned in very many countries). When the independence of Kosovo is disputed, an image representing the independence of Kosovo represents one side of the dispute. Therefore it cannot be neutral, and neutrality is required of us on Wikipedia :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose proposal, also please do not edit war to insert the controversial "proposed template image" which was just outlined above a few hours ago. There is no reason to edit war the proposal in, before it was even properly discussed. The proposal also contradicts the established norms for these types of templates. Hobartimus (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


To my knowledge, Wikipedia is not a democracy and does not function by vote. Every single valid point I have outlined above still stands, and is backed by policy. I've not edit-warred to introduce the map, but have introduced it after the only User who discussed the matter agreed that it should be introduced (see above).
Even if this image somehow "contradicts the established norms for these types of templates" (please provide a link to the WP article supporting this quite dubious claim), Kosovo is a special case in many ways, least of all this small matter. In short, your post in no way justifies the use of an image which quite clearly represents the independence of Kosovo, all the while ignoring the neutral approach that must be taken in serious disputes such as this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


support' proposal for a neutral image to accompany the template. Use of the images of the ethnic-Albanian Republic of Kosovo is likely offensive to many and also legally questionable (the UN does not recognise Kosovo). A neutral image is obviously the way forward. 90.193.97.175 (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the image, Direktor is right on three points:

  1. As far as I'm aware of, there's no requirement to use any image at all in these navigation templates. They are pretty, not indispensable. (If I'm wrong on this, I would like to read the guideline describing how a "correct template" should be).
  2. An image is more than an adornment. It's part of the information we convey. As such, it must comply with our content policies (including the need to present information from a neutral point of view).
  3. A coat of arms is a symbol of a state. Thus, to avoid bias, using the coat of arms of the Republic of Kosovo is only adequate for topics related exclusively to the Republic of Kosovo itself (the political institutions), and not to Kosovo in general, in all its aspects.

So, using the coat of arms in this template should be entirely out of the question.

Regarding the last link of the template, using "Republic of Kosovo" (indicating political independence) is just as biased as using "Autonomous Province of Kosovo" (indicating Serbian sovereignty). Because "Kosovo" alone is rather terse for our purposes, Direktor's proposals of using either "Modern [[Kosovo]]" or "Contemporary [[Kosovo]]" -or something along those lines- should be adopted. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any more objections? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, same reasons as Template_talk:Politics_of_Kosovo#Request_to_remove_the_flag, we use the current coat of arms in all this series of templates. The more neutral stance is using the exact same criteria as all the other templates. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be, if "Kosovo" was just a short/common name for the Republic of Kosovo. It is not. The consensus on Wikipedia is that Kosovo is a "disputed region". The coat of arms represents one of the entities within the borders of that region. These are two seperate things. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Kosovo" is very clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in English language for "Republic of Kosovo", in the exact same way as "Spain" is for "Kingdom of Spain" and "Germany" is for "Federal Republic of Germany". The coat was chosen by the government of that country as representing the whole country. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It is confirmed. You don't understand the problem at hand.
  • Yes, "Kosovo" is very clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in English language for "Republic of Kosovo", but this template is not only about the Republic of Kosovo, but about the entire damn region. Here it is again: the Republic of Kosovo (WP:COMMONNAME: "Kosovo") is NOT the same thing as Kosovo region. You fail to realize that the government of the country called Republic of Kosovo (with the WP:COMMONNAME: "Kosovo"), does NOT by no means represent the whole of the Kosovo region.
  • "The coat was chosen by the government of that country as representing the whole country."
For the millionth time: by WP consensus, Kosovo is NOT a country. It is a region. The Republic of Kosovo is one of two entities that exist within that region. Hence the ridiculous three infoboxes in the article.
All this is not some kind of "invention" of mine I just introduced here a few days ago, it is, in fact, the basic situation on Kosovo which you should have fully understood before even getting involved in this kind of dispute. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Truth is, looking at Ev's arguments, I'm almost convinced to go on and agree. The problem that stops me from doing that is that we are applying a special exception for this template for reasons that also apply to other templates, so we would be taking a POV about the legality of the Republic of Kosovo.
You see, I see similar problems with the coats in other templates from the same region. Nobody has a problem with Template:History of Croatia using the coat of the medieval kingdom. Template:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina has a similar problem, and looking at Coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina I see that it has had several coats and we are only using the last one. In Template:History_of_Serbia, looking at Coat of arms of Serbia it's using a coat from 1882, and the template links to articles like Duklja and Principality of Zeta, which were not in Serbia, and are currently part of modern Montenegro. Template:History of Montenegro uses a coat from 2004, see Coat of arms of Montenegro and List of coats of arms of Montenegro.
Also, the current frontiers of all those territories don't fit with their historical frontiers, and nobody pays attention at the disagreement of serbian/croats/bosnian/whatever villages who got stuck in the "wrong" country, never mind all those refugees. Then again, why are we making a special exception only for Kosovo? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About "two entities". If I'm not mistaken, the Assembly of Kosovo was created by the UN itself, and that assembly then declared independency. The serbian enclaves rejected that government, but they are not a separate entity of their own under UN administration because all of Kosovo is still nominally under UN administration, not just the serbian enclaves. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Again, yes, I know. The matter is immensely complicated, even on the general level. As you say, the UNMIK created the Kosovar assembly. The UN controlled the region. That assembly, however, declared the new "Republic of Kosovo". This move excludes UN control by definition, and passes the power to the newly-created government. This move was in no way encouraged or endorsed by the United Nations. The UN did not recognize the declaration and the "Republic of Kosovo", thus maintaining that the region was still an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration. The government of the Republic of Kosovo naturally rejects UN administration as it is an independent government not recognized by the UN. Hence, the Republic of Kosovo is not under UN administration. The only part of Kosovo still not rejecting UN administration are the Serbian enclaves.

"All of Kosovo is still nominally under UN administration, not just the Serbian enclaves."
Quite true, but its not that simple. All of Kosovo is "nominally" under UN administration, but you've not followed that correct assertion to its end. "Nominally" (but most of it not de facto), Kosovo is UN administered, it is "nominally" not an independent country. "Nominally", Kosovo is a UN administered autonomous province of Serbia. The situation on the ground, the de facto situation, is quite different (as you may conclude from the above paragraph). De facto, only the Serbian enclaves accept UN administration (as a part of Serbia). The Republic of Kosovo does not consider itself UN administered, and its independence from Serbia is not recognized by the United Nations.
These are the basics of the situation. I hope they'll provide an adequate insight, despite my not being a professional at politics and diplomacy.

Finally, for the 50th time: we are making an exception because the region of Kosovo has no damn coat of arms. This is becoming rather absurd, I must demand that you read my replies and research the matter more thoroughly, preferrably before you get deeply involved and lobby for a month-long full block of the template. I have to say I'm sick and tired of repeating the same sentences in different arrangement over and over again without them being properly addressed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look at my comment, I provide examples where we are not using the coat of the region but the coat of the modern state of the same name. I want to know why using those coats is not a problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparing the region of Kosovo to fully recognized countries needs no comment. Your question is like asking "why is it not a problem" to have only one infobox in the United Kingdom article, as compared to Kosovo's three. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depending on whom you listen to, Kosovo is:
  • An independent country (formally known as the Republic of Kosovo).
  • A Serbian province (formally known as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija).
  • Something in between (a UN or EU protectorate ?).
Using the coats of arms in this template implies taking an unequivocal position in favour of the first option. Not using it, remaining silent about the issue, produces a neutral template that leaves it up to our readership to decide what they consider Kosovo to be. :-)
When it comes to Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia or Montenegro, using the coat of arms is perfectly fine, simply because in those cases asserting statehood does not infringe our neutral point of view policy, because their statehood is not disputed by any serious party. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Persistent edit-warring?[edit]

Ok, this just isn't right. the article was edited a few times and it gets full protection for a month!?

I see that I've somehow earned User:Enric Naval's "negative attention", since he requested the block. I must assert that this looks like a deliberate attempt to prevent an edit which was already established as required by policy. Blocking an article after three days of quiet for "persistent edit-warring" is against what I've come to believe Wikipedia stands for. I hope User:Carnildo will grant my request and further elaborate this article block. I shan't stand by quietly at this appalling development, however.
User:Enric Naval has pushed the version he sees fit, avoided any proper discussion and then misleadingly petitioned for a block, thus "winning the argument" it would seem. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this admin action wasn't very well advised. Arbcom probation on Kosovo means that admins should block accounts (not articles) at the first sign of edit-warring. Blocking all edit-warring accounts will effectively clear the air for bona fide editors. Fwiiw, there is no way the coat of arms can stay on this template within our npov policy, that's really a no-brainer. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"No-brainer"? Apparently the idea is absolutely incomprehensible. I find myself repeating and repeating the point over and over again from every conceivable point of view, and in every imaginable way. I think I'm getting CTS, all because of one image that is clearly and obviously against policy. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

guys, here is what we are going to do. Clearly this template isn't about the image. The image is a decorative extra, yes?
We will remove the image. That's the default. Then you are required to use this talkpage to decide whether there should be an image, and if so, which one. After there is a consensus, the image will be included.
Here is what I am going to do. I will lift the protection, and remove the image. Apart from that, I will not touch the template. Once you have a consensus image-wise, the image will be included. Anyone editing the template without consensus will be blocked under ((User article ban arb)) per Talk:Kosovo.
Is this a deal? I sincerely believe that templates intended for navigating between articles should not be locked down because some pathetic quibble over which decorative icon it should be graced by. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine by me. Unless someone can provide some kind of strict policy or guideline "ordering" that an image must be used, I can't see any serious objections to this solution. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's good for me. It's certainly better than placing a blank map as the image :P --Enric Naval (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was my original idea, anyway [1], but "aesthetic concerns" and accusations of "vandalism" on the part of some editors lead me to try and find an NPOV image to replace the seal. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benchmark[edit]

Is there a standard benchmark that we can defer to regarding nationhood? Is there a threshhold of recognition by other countries (50 or whatever) that means that a new country is considered legitimately independent? What criteria does the UN use for accepting new members? If the US or EU recognises you, does that catapult you to instant statehood? (Probably, yes). Regarding Kosovo, well, it is not for us to decide; we must of course defer to global authorities, probably using the above criteria, as to when it becomes a state. Regarding this present contretemps, I'd say DIREKTOR is in the right. Whether we like it or not, coats of arms for countries confer an aspect of legitimacy that Wikipedia really ought not to confer at this stage. Those that seek to put it up there are those that have an inherent pro-statehood POV, and I'd say we need to wait for outside confirmation on this.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


this is a dispute, there isn't a "correct" answer. But this is the "history of Kosovo" article (antiquity to present), not the "history of the Republic of Kosovo" one (2007 to present), hence the coat of arms is clearly misplaced. This flag-tagging on the part of the Kosovar editors is a childish pissing contest, and needs to be stopped by administrative action, under WP:NPOV and under the arbcom probation placed on Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is a Kosovar editor? I'm Spanish :P
(And let's not forget that the flag-tagging problem is two-sided, we have Serbian editors insisting in removing Kosovo flags. @Alasdair, by that rationale those who seek to remove would be having an inherent anti-statehood POV ....) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the problem is indeed two sided. If we had Kosovar Albanians adding RoK flags, and Serbs adding Serbian flags, then the dispute would by symmetrical. Tellingly, nobody ever tried to slap a Serbian flag on the template, consider that. So, in this two-sided problem, we have one side trying to push through their side no matter what, while the other side is in the defensive, not so much trying to push their view but preventing the other side from giving theirs the air of the "WP:TRUTH". Needless to say, we as Wikipedians need to keep things neutral, endorse neither side, and if there is a problem with ornamenting templates with flag icons, the obvious solution will be to simply do without them. This isn't a flag gallery, it's a navigation template. I fail to see how the absence of flags in this template can be interpreted as a positive statement denying statehood to the Republic of Kosovo declared in 2007. Everyone seems to agree that Kosovo never had statehood between 160 BCE and 2007 CE. So even if statehood for the 2007 RoK is granted, a "sovereign Kosovo" only accounts for 0.1% of the period addressed by this template. --dab (𒁳) 06:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I made a timeline below to see what nationalities were editing and who it winded up protected)
This argument is flawed because we have templates of territories that never had statehood, and also new coats that were created in the last years or the last century, and we use all those coats with no problem at all. See Template:History_of_Abkhazia, the Coat of arms of Abkhazia was created in 1992, and Abkhazia is only recognized by two countries, with all international organizations considering it as part of Georgia. Isn't the presence of that coat a much more POV case than Kosovo? Can I go and remove it with the same argument used here? (Idem for also unrecognized Template:History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

um, yes you can. It's a wiki. If you ask me, these coats of arms are clutter in any case, and they hardly serve any use even in the case of undisputedly sovereign states. --dab (𒁳) 05:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, then, I'll remove them and make a RfC to see which image would be better for each one (three RfCs, one in each template). I will have to investigate each one a bit to see what alternative images can be used in each case. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your concern, Enric: considering the current state of Wikipedia, regarding any apparent exception with suspicion is a perfectly reasonable attitude. :-) However, in the cases of these entities, we cannot automatically apply the same standards used with regular countries.
The situation is similar to that discussed at Talk:Šar Mountains#Serbia and Kosovo:
  • Using the coat of arms is biased towards independence, because it makes an unequivocal assertion of statehood.
  • Not using the coat of arms is not biased against independence, because silence does not equal negating independence: it simply means that we leave it up to our readership to decide what they consider those troubling places to be.
Having the Abkhaz & Ossetian coat of arms in similar templates would be equally inadequate; I'm not sure about Karabakh.
In my experience, the search for alternative, non-partisan images & symbols in the Balkans tends to go Neolithic (cf. Kosovo contest for state symbols , BBC), or at least Ancient (cf. the images displayed on the reverse of current Bosnian banknotes). - Best, Ev (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no problem, we can easily show some neolithic artefact as far as I am concerned, or, you know, simply sticking with no image is fine too. "not showing any coat of arms is biased anti-something" is, frankly, nonsense. There is no reason to plaster everything with coats of arms even if the nationhood in question is undisputed. I'll say that again: these tiny flags and coats of arms popping up in all possible and impossible places are clutter, and in cases of border disputes, worse than clutter. Just avoiding them whenever possible doesn't indicate any sort of bias, excepting possibly anti-clutter bias. --dab (𒁳) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be perfectly happy without any image at all. - Ev (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline

There is a good bunch of Serbian editors removing the flag and Kosovar editors restoring it, but there are also other nationalities in both sides.

The coat in dispute was created in February 2008 by Kosovo's assembly.

In Template:History_of_Kosovo:

The case of Template:Politics of Kosovo is also muddy, with a few Serbian editors removing the flag/coat and a few Kosovar editors restoring it. Editors who are neither Serbian nor Kosovar would be

From 19 to 21 April 2009 there was an edit war that finished in a protection.

--Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pure nonsense, most of it. You've not properly checked half the nationalities. Your lack of prior research shows itself again. I've looked at this for five seconds and I've already noticed blatant errors: I for example, am certainly not Serbian, and DaQuirin is German, not British. In fact, I'm from a nation that was recently at war with Serbs. You've no way to confirm the nationality of a large number of these Users and IPs.
I also don't see the purpose of all this. Are you trying to prove that there is no two-sided dispute? What relevance does all this have? The history of this article is fine & dandy in comparison to most Kosovo-related articles. Do we full-protect them all for months at a time? Pure nonsense...
Furthermore, don't flatter yourself. The perpetual long-term edit-warring on this article did not "end" when you pushed for your block, it was relatively quiet for days. And it would certainly not have ended even if you had your way with the ridiculously long block, nor will it probably end even when the whole Kosovo issue is finally resolved. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooooops, you are right. I confused "DaQuirin" with "The Quill", and you are Croatian. So much for my theory about Serbian editors :P
(I don't know why the admin chose a one month long protection, I didnt' ask for any specific length) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in either case, they're supposed to block edit-warring users (like me :), not articles on Kosovo probation. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eric, don't you have anything productive to do with your time on Wikipedia? Such as improving our coverage on the history of Kosovo if that's your field of interest. This is a navigation template. Yes, ((Country history)) has an "image" parameter, to be used preferably for some historical flag or coat of arms. If there is a problem or disagreement with the image, the parameter can just remain empty until there is some sort of consensus. Obviously, the 2008 coat of arms failed to get any consensus. If you are interested in pursuing this, how about you present us with a range of possible candidates of historical flags or coats of arms associated with Kosovo, so people will be able to state their preference, and can argue about which candidate would be most adequate. If you do not want to do this, feel free to also just drop the topic. --dab (𒁳) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has never been about personal preferences and aesthetically pleasant images, this has always been about POV.
Removing only Kosovo's coat and asking for some representative image to replace it implies a POV statement about the legitimacy of the country's independence. See my comment on the section above, would you agree to remove the images at Template:History_of_Abkhazia and Template:History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh so that we are neutrally using the same criteria for all "history of X" templates? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sure, if there is a dispute as to the appropriateness of the coat of arms shown there, it should be removed until there is a consensus. --dab (𒁳) 05:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above, I'll remove and make a RfC simultaneously. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, there is no reasonable argument here in Wikipedia to keep the image of the template as a mere map. I know the vision of the Coat of Arms of the Kosovar Republic can be very offensive to some devout Orthodox Serbs, but hey — Wikipedia is not here to respect religions, otherwise the Muhammad Cartoons would not be here, for example.
The non-use of the Kosovar Coat of Arms is unjustifiable under any circumstance. In the infoboxes of all European countries, including the non-recognized or partially-recognized ones, features the Coat of Arms. So why not Kosovo?
Kosovo cannot be compared with the examples of China and Ireland, since that differently from these two cases all of the territory is under the control of just one government, and no other country or government controls any part of it — Belgrade can claim control over North Kosovo, but it has no armed forces of any type to enforce this claimed power — the current Community Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija is almost as powerless as the Republic of Serbian Krajina Government-in-exile — and this fact is related by the BBC. There is no Tamil Eelam/Tamil Tigers scenario in North Kosovo or in the Serb enclaves, since the Tigers in the region ran away and went extinct…
So, in the name of the reason, I will put back the Coat of Arms again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.200.214 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the scope of the template is not the "history of the Republic of Kosovo" (2008 to present), it is the "history of Kosovo" (1389 to present). I don't see why navboxes need any image at all, most of the time they just clutter up an already busy page. --dab (𒁳) 12:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories